Delegation of the Responsibility to Personally Test
Personal testing should always be considered the standard because it is declared by guru, sädhu and çästra. But this standard has been modified in ISKCON in the following ways: (1) A disciple sometimes delegates his responsibility of testing the guru to others such as leaders or committees in the institution. (2) A guru sometimes delegates his responsibility to test his prospective disciples to others such as temple presidents. These modifications do not relieve the guru or disciple of their ultimate responsibilities in this matter. The prospective disciple is ultimately responsible for the choice of guru, and the guru is ultimately responsible for accepting a disciple.
The choice of a guru should always be considered primarily the personal responsibility of a prospective disciple. Therefore, delegation of that responsibility to others should not be encouraged, and what to speak of mandated. Rather, official policy should always encourage personal and direct testing. Similarly, it is the responsibility of the guru to test prospective disciples. Therefore, delegation of that responsibility to others should not be mandated. Rather, official policy should always encourage personal and direct testing of disciples. It is better to risk having disciples and gurus make their own mistakes and thereby acknowledge their own responsibility, not least of all because doing so is the çästric injunction.
It is presently ISKCON law that a guru cannot accept a disciple unless there is a recommendation from a temple president or a similarly situated person. In this way,
some of the responsibility for mutual testing has been delegated to a third person who could possibly interfere with the process. Although Çréla Prabhupäda himself established the precedent of delegation, even he experienced problems with it, as when he said that devotees were being recommended too easily for second initiation and called for a “boiling of the milk”. SAC, in their discussions, have not tried to resolve this issue, but feel that it should be considered in the future.
According to çästra there is a great responsibility for the aspiring disciple to personally test the guru. But in ISKCON this is not always possible, especially when gurus have large numbers of disciples. Disciples’ delegating their responsibility to the institution for testing gurus has become quite common in ISKCON, so much so that many take it to be the standard. This is especially true for devotees aspiring for initiation from gurus who already have many hundreds of disciples and who may not often visit the aspirant’s geographical location.
The aspiring disciple is confronted with some important decisions: “Shall I choose a guru whom I can test in a personal way through direct association? Or shall I choose a guru I am not able to test through direct association?” These considerations are individual, and individuals have the freedom to decide for themselves. We hope, however, that the aspirant will consider the choice of guru very carefully in reference to çästra, in consultation with trusted senior devotees, andon the recommended method of direct personal association. But no matter which of these methods the aspirant applies, he assumes the ultimate responsibility for testing the guru’s qualifications.